January 10, 2007


Democrats feel liberals' antiwar heat
: Freshman and veteran lawmakers alike risk the ire of bloggers and other activists if they waver on an Iraq exit. (Janet Hook, January 10, 2007, LA Times)

It did not take long for Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Kansas, to learn the price of defying her party's liberal base. After she said she would support President Bush if he proposed an increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, antiwar bloggers fumed and MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, considered running a television ad attacking her.

Of course, if they toe the loony Left line they have no chance, instead of little, in '08.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 10, 2007 12:20 PM

My goodness, how can people resist the horrible "price" of having bloggers fume. Poor Rep. Boyda, how will she survive?

Posted by: Bob at January 10, 2007 2:12 PM


How does your position differ from the "looney left"? You have recommended that we not occupy or keep troops in Iraq within months of the original invasion.

Since right after the 2004 election I have recommended a similiar withdrawal to Kurdistan. This should be coupled with a promise from the US that there will be no defense of the elected government in Baghdad unless they proceed with humane relocation of Sunni's from Shi'a areas paid from there own pocket.

I think the continued unconditional support of the Shi'a government in Baghdad will inevitabably lead to oppression of Sunni which will turn our originally morally defensible regime change policy into one that is morally indefensible. That in turn will radicalize Muslims in a manner that will give support to Al Qaeda and have the opposite effect of our original effort at moderating Islam.

So I'm with the looney left and I think Bush is being clueless. (Kansas may surprise you)

Posted by: h-man at January 10, 2007 2:32 PM

h-man: the Shia' will not support Al-Qaeda, nor will the Iranians. That leaves the Saudis and Palestinians...

Am I leaving someone out?

Posted by: Bartman at January 10, 2007 3:16 PM

Sorry...some of northern Pakistan as well...

Posted by: Bartman at January 10, 2007 3:17 PM

"Shia' will not support Al-Qaeda"

Didn't say they would. They will support Hezbollah and other Al-Qaeda-like terrorist groups. But regardless of names, the point is that the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni and active participation by the US in oppressing Sunni's in Iraq will NOT moderate their behavior, which was the original goal of Bush's WOT

Posted by: h-man at January 10, 2007 3:38 PM

Hezbollah is just another political party, like the Federalists.

Posted by: oj at January 10, 2007 8:06 PM


There's nothing indefensible about forcing the Sunni to accept majority rule or leave. We got rid of the Loyalists.

Posted by: oj at January 10, 2007 8:08 PM

"nothing indefensible"

Not now, but if the end result of Shi'a control is of the nature of Saddam's rule, then the US should not associate themselves with the endeavor. Because first it is immoral and second it will merely exacerbate hostilty of Sunni's towards the US resulting in future 9/11's. Already the Shi'a militia AND the Shi'a govt. are in the process of taking revenge against all sunni not just those you choose to label as insurgents.

Is Mookie accepting majority rule or is he seeking vengeance? If the later and the Iraq govt. does not end it, then it is indefensible.

Posted by: h-man at January 10, 2007 8:57 PM

Mookie is the majority. Haven't you figured out yet that it's us and the Shi'a against the Sunni Arabs?

Posted by: oj at January 10, 2007 11:08 PM

"Of course, if they toe the loony Left line they have no chance, instead of little, in '08."

So says Orrin "50-0 in 2004" Judd...

Posted by: jsmith at January 10, 2007 11:28 PM

Mookie is a Shi'a, to be sure. So let's kill 5000 Sunni whackos, and Mookie (along with some of his guard). Gotta keep things in balance.

Posted by: ratbert at January 11, 2007 1:38 AM


In Vietnam no one suggested or thought of the concept of the South Vietnam invading North Vietnam and ruling over Hanoi. The fact that it was essentially defensive covers alot of sins. Driving out 20% of the Iraq population while not offering an equitable political solution to that 20% is not a defensive war.

We, the US, are the responsible party in the conflict and the ones who should be trying to end the sectarian violence. As I stated above, we should withdraw to Kurdistan and promise no further defence of the Shi'a govt. unless we are assured that the Shi'a either thoroughly commit to ending Shi'a/governmental assaults on Sunni or offer them and the Kurds sufficient autonomy. Why not let Sunni/Kurd be self-governing states or communities? Why continue trying to make arbitrary lines on a map, drawn 80 years ago, into some sacred Shi'a state?

BTW, you have "hinted" that we shouldn't be in the country anyway. I'm merely making it explicit. (The goal is to moderate Muslim behavior to the West, I wish Bush would return to that goal. Picking sides in a civil war doesn't aid in attaining that goal)

Posted by: h-man at January 11, 2007 4:29 AM

That's inane. We annihilated the Cong and killed tons of North Vietnamese and fought to keep the country divided lest a Communist government take over the South. The notion that the Shi'a of Iraq should be nice to the enemies of Iraqi democracy is simple hypocrisy.

Nor is there any reason to occupy Kurdistan.

The equitable solution is for the Sunni to leave if they won't be governed by the Shi'a.

Posted by: oj at January 11, 2007 8:33 AM


Why should we do it when Mookie will do it for us. He's our creature.

Posted by: oj at January 11, 2007 8:38 AM

Despite staying in Iraq too long, even W carried their seats with him in '04. McCain won't have any trouble carrying them.

Posted by: oj at January 11, 2007 8:51 AM